[You can find part one of this series here, and part two here] John Hendryx continues his response to the "synergist" visitor: Finally, your attempt to overturn the doctrine of total depravity relies entirely too much on the one biblical concept of "dead in sin" for the unbeliever. From my standpoint, if those texts which … Continue reading An Arminian Response to John Hendryx on the Meaning and Implications of Spiritual Death Part 3: John Hendryx Concedes That it is a Plain “Fact” that Faith Precedes Regeneration
Continuing from Part 1... Hendryx begins his response to the visitor: (John) Dear Brother ...You say, "monergists take the 'dead in sin' phrase too far" but, I would turn that around to say that you have relied entirely too much on what you believe to be the force of this ONE argument.... Here's why: ... … Continue reading An Arminian Response to John Hendryx on the Meaning and Implications of Spiritual Death Part 2: Dead Reckoning
I wrote an article some years back on the Transfer of Necessity Principle (TNP), an idea which some have used as an argument against free will. Looking back, my only real regret writing it was that it was too long, and probably inaccessible to someone who hasn't studied the issue. With that in mind, I purposed … Continue reading The Transfer of Nonsense Principle (Concise Version)
From the late R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries we find a short article "praising" limited atonement by Richard Phillips. For the purpose of this post we will be focusing in on a section that promotes a critique of Arminianism that has been common among Calvinists for a long time and has been expressed in many different … Continue reading Does Arminian Theology Suggest That We Depend on Ourselves Instead of Christ for Salvation?
Does God depend upon anything in creation? Everyone agrees that God has no need of things like food, water, shelter, rest, etc. We often refer to this as God’s aseity –His independence of His creation. So God has no innate need of these things, and is utterly self-sufficient. But can God take on a need … Continue reading Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies
In our last post on Calvinists who talk past the debate, we handily disposed of the fallacious arguments of a Calvinist objector insists on misrepresenting the issue. He tries to salvage his rapidly-crumbling narrative with yet more proof that he is simply talking past what is being discussed without understanding it. Still Missing the Point I've been pretty … Continue reading Tackling Calvinist Errors on Omniscience & Aseity (Plus a Deductive Proof)
In reply to my post on Calvinism’s Inconsistencies on God’s Attributes, our dear objector has given us another demonstration of missing the point entirely. As is all too common when discussing theological issues, most 'cage-stage' Calvinists have a dreadful habit of trying to define what you believe for you rather than actually listening to or … Continue reading Calvinist Debate: Talking Past the Argument
Some years after writing this article on God's aseity, I was pointed to a reply by 'TheSire' (hereafter, 'the objector') that more or less misses the point of my original post. It's not very long or well-conceived, but I'll address his main points. Lack of Explaining Power The first of his objections involves people 'explaining' … Continue reading Calvinism’s Inconsistencies on God’s Attributes
It has been said that “knowledge is power;” but it is not implied by that expression that it is a power capable of exerting itself. All that is implied is, that it directs an active agent in the manner of exerting his power. What effect, I would ask, can my knowledge of a past event … Continue reading Great Quotes: Thomas Ralston on the Compatibility of Freedom and Foreknowledge With Regards to Judas Betraying Jesus
Whether you freely believe in Christ or not makes a difference only in what you obtain, not what you deserve. But since what you obtain is only what you’ve freely received from God, the One who makes you differ from those with no hope is God, for without His grace and mercy, you’d be no … Continue reading Great Quotes: J.C. Thibodaux on Faith and Boasting
A while back someone on the SEA discussion board referenced the following comments by Calvinist Theologian Wayne Grudem arguing against the compatibility of foreknowledge and conditional election. Below is my brief interaction with this quoted material. The idea that God’s predestination of some to believe is based on foreknowledge of their faith encounters still another … Continue reading Calvinist Sleight of Hand: A Brief Arminian Interaction With Wayne Grudem’s Arguments Against the Compatibility of Foreknowledge And Conditional Election
Brian Abasciano addresses this oft repeated Calvinist argument against conditional salvation here: Brian Abasciano, "Addressing the Calvinist Challenge, 'Why Did You Believe And Your Neighbor Did Not?'"
Just saw this post called "Man's Will: Before And After the Fall" which opens with these words: Augustine and the Calvinistic tradition in general define the will's freedom, or lack thereof, in relation to sin. Why? Because this is how the Bible defines it. Jesus declared "everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. … Continue reading Calvinism And The Fall: The Problem Ignored Again
“Whether there is any foreknowledge or not, it is certain that there will be one particular course of future events and no other. On the most absolute doctrine of freedom there will be, as we shall soon more fully illustrate, there is one train of choices freely put forth and no other. If by the … Continue reading Great Quotes: Daniel Whedon on Foreknowledge and Free Will
Let us now contemplate these motives which are said to act upon the mind so as necessarily to influence the will. Let us look them full in the face, and ask the question, What are they? Are they intelligent beings, capable of locomotion? Are they endued with a self-moving energy? Yea, more: Are they capable … Continue reading Great Quotes: Thomas Ralston on Calvinist Arguments Against Free Will Based on Greatest Motive Force
The doctrine of the unconditional election of a part, necessarily implies the unconditional reprobation of the rest. I know some who hold to the former, seem to deny the latter; for they represent God as reprobating sinners, in view of their sins. When all were sinners, they say God passed by some, and elected others. … Continue reading Sin, Reprobation and Foreknowledge: The Calvinists’ Attempt to Have Their Cake and Eat it Too